Global Political Economy: the Solution of Environmental Problems - Case Study Example

To what extent can environmental problems be resolved within the structures of the contemporary global political economy? Introduction Over the past four decades, there have been two major global environmental concerns that threaten man’s very existence: the thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer over the earth’s polar regions, and the global warming. The former concern is caused primarily by the massive use of CFC or chlorofluorocarbon in refrigerating systems and spray cans. CFC, when released into the atmosphere, depletes the stratospheric ozone. The latter, on the other hand, is brought about by unabashed use of fossil fuels, which release substantial quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, dramatically altering climatic patterns which will inevitably affect all life on earth (Oosthoek, Jan & Gills, Barry K., 2005). Oosthoek, Jan & Gills, Barry K.(2005) further observe that while the CFC concern was met fiercely by the global community with immediate and tangible solutions, the global warming concern, however, has apparently been ignored by majority of world leaders and policy makers. According to Oosthoek et.al., the underlying reason for this is a whole gamut of interwoven political and economic interests, as well as the unpredictably volatile shifting of power in an unstable world arena. It is, however, a dangerous stance for the whole humankind to continue ignoring the environmental crisis, for it is tantamount to resigning to the fate of extinction. It is not beyond the capability of the contemporary global political economy (GPE) to resolve the current environmental crisis. However, within the framework and structure of the contemporary GPE, there is only very limited workable and feasible environmental agenda that can be successfully tackled. This paper attempts to take a look and analyze the enabling factors and mechanisms within the contemporary GPE structure. As well, the limiting factors within the same structure will be analyzed in the context of possibly improving them to enhance the resolution process. Discussion Differing perspectives are given to the environmental concerns, in the context of economics, by different convictions. The Neoclassicals view environmental concerns as simply market imperfections and failures, which therefore needs the intervention of the state to implement laws in order to perfect markets towards achievement of efficient and sustainable use of natural resources and environment. On the other hand, majority of the Marxists claim that pollution and depletion of natural resources among capitalist societies of today are inevitable in capitalists’ processes and activities of extracting and distributing surplus. Marxists conclude that capitalism is not capable of resolving environmental problems (Hanley et al., 1997; Portney and Stavins, 2000; and O’Connor, 1988, 1998; Benton, 1989; Altvater, 1990;Harvey, 1993; Vlachou, 1993, 2002a; Sandler, 1994; Leff, 1995; Burkett, 1999; Kovel, 1999, as cited by Vlachou, Andriana, 2004). Alongside the onset of economic globalization concept in the 1940s, environmental concerns were also given a global scope. Hence, global environment has evolved to reflect the broader developments in the world political economy, as well as the ability to frame environmental politics by various social forces (Stevis, Dimitris, 2005). The contemporary GPE structure has likewise taken shape. The position that the contemporary GPE, within its structure, has a very limited capacity to resolve the environmental concerns is supported foremost by Newell, Peter & Patterson, Matthew, 1998, who argue in their paper A climate for business: global warming, the state and capital, that global warming cannot be totally solved in a capitalist economy with the fossil energy as its central focus. Newell et.al. argue that in the contemporary political economy structure, lobby groups like the coalition of fossil energy traders have gained much power and thus have cast major influence over governments – in the regional and international levels, notwithstanding their dominance in their home bases. Thus, however strongly convicted the policy makers and world leaders are about the urgent necessity to pass laws limiting carbon emissions, with the fuel traders’ lobbying and influence, no clear-cut and responsive policy on regulated carbon emissions has so far been passed, much less approved. Carbon tax policy, for instance, has been a widely debated proposal in Europe and in the United States. It had to pass a series of public hearings and dialogues, as opposition strongly met the proposal. With the involvement of chambers of commerce, as well as the United Nations organizations and other such international agencies, a version of the carbon tax policy that entails less cost to the fuel traders was passed. This only provides an evidence of a capitalist political economy that cannot effectively solve the global environment crises that is alarmingly threatening the world today. Clapp, Jennifer (1998) argues that the Multi-National Companies or MNCs, despite their claims to the opposite, are definitely the main polluting agents to the underdeveloped or developing nations. Tied up to the Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs), the MNCs claim that they bring only clean technologies to the South, having learned from their lapses in their home bases in the North. However, through the years, these recipient underdeveloped and developing nations show no difference or any improvement from that of their North investors. Klapp further argues that the North has seemingly transferred the mistakes to the South, apparently at greater scale, and that, in fact, “environmentally unsound foreign direct investment (FDI) by multinational corporations (MNCs) in developing countries have been documented over the past 30 years.” Konca, Ken (2000), states that even the World Trade Organization or WTO, which is supposed to be the mechanism for a harmonious global cooperation among its members, has proved to be most anti-environmental. Its liberal stance on trading and bartering has been found to be detrimental and a threat to the environment. Both procedurally and substantively, WTO has allowed or has sponsored decisions that pose great danger of damage to the environment. Where then it was hoped within WTO that trade rules can be greened, such hope has eventually waned with the realities setting in. Further, globalizing market pressures are not the only threats to the environmental efforts. Konca claims that there is apparently global-scale efforts to undermine environmental protection by the “commodification of critical global cycles and ecosystem services.” Obviously, what is being put forward here is that, in the current highly globalized economy, challenge of economic gains face the nation states which have to respond to the challenge in a competitive manner. It is therefore understandable that these nation states place much importance on the economic gains rather than the still intangible long-term environmental concerns. The concern for economic growth indeed shadows the concern for environmental sustainability. As governments and the international community continue in their pursuit foreconomic growth in the advancement of their own interests, there will always be an unhealthy imbalance between environmental sustainability and economic growth. The contemporary GPE as it is cannot resolve such imbalance. It cannot change the character of the growth into an activity or process that is no longer based on processes that may increase pollution and the depletion of nonrenewable resources. It is peopled and controlled by individuals and institutions that control the economy, thus have vested interest that may not always be towards sustainable environment. The GPE is technically beholden to the powerful and influential people and organizations. It should cut the ties that bind it to the powerful groups or individuals with vested interests. These influential groups or individuals benefit the most from ecological destruction, and from the production of goods and delivery of services without being hassled by environmental regulations. Likewise, MNCs or transnational companies have the same vested interests. It is a great obstacle that needs to be destroyed. Read More